Russia-Ukraine War - Haris Malik - Article thematic Image - Nov

The year 2022 has been significant as far as the international security environment is concerned. Whether it is NATO and Russia in confrontation in Europe, or the United States (US) and China, trying to play against each other in the Asia-Pacific region, the overall international security environment appears to have deteriorated, specifically against the backdrop of increasing great power contestation. It has been more than eight months since the Russia-Ukraine war broke out. Since then, it has emerged as an important agenda of international security discourse and there have been various speculations regarding where the war is headed, its intensity, how it is going to end and more importantly, when.

Regardless of the speculations, instead of coming to an end, this conflict has become even more complicated and appears to be escalating further. For instance, a bomb explosion on the Kerch Bridge, that partially destroyed it, caused a major setback for the Russian military campaign. The bridge connects Crimea with mainland Russia and was a major supply route for the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine. It was also the longest bridge in Europe built by Russia in 2018 and symbolic of her earlier annexation of Crimea in 2014. The explosion was termed an ‘act of terrorism by Vladimir Putin and has now provided Kremlin a pretext to intensify its military campaign across various cities of Ukraine.

In the same vein, the Russian military’s excessive bombing of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and other cities against the backdrop of the attack on Kerch Bridge, which Russia believed was backed by Ukraine, has also intensified the war. This has also brought massive worldwide criticism for Russia, especially considering the killing of innocent civilians. Russia has also annexed four regions of Ukraine – Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson. Subsequently, Russia held a referendum in these regions, in which, according to her state media, a vast majority of people voted in favour of annexation. However, the international community rejected this claim and called it a forced and illegal annexation. Even the United Nations General Assembly, in a resolution, condemned this Russian annexation of Ukrainian territories as an ‘attempted illegal annexation’, and demanded an immediate reversal.    

Likewise, the nuclear element in the Russia-Ukraine war is also significant. At the start of the war, the Russian nuclear deterrent forces were put on high alert status. Even now, after several months, the nuclear element continues to factor in. President Putin has been accused of threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Even President Biden has termed the situation as presenting a risk of a nuclear ‘Armageddon’ at levels unprecedented since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. However, President Putin has denied any Russian intention to use nuclear weapons.

Despite accusations and denials, nuclear signalling is clearly at play. Both NATO and Russia recently conducted nuclear exercises. Notwithstanding their aims and objectives, one thing becomes quite apparent – the nuclear element is significant in the Russia-Ukraine war.

This conflict in Europe has emerged as the most significant issue dominating the international security environment and has strengthened great power contestation. Even though the war has remained confined to the borders of Ukraine, the risk of escalation continues to persist. Given the various factors discussed earlier, and apparent lack of attempts at backchannel peace talks between the major stakeholders, it seems like the war is not going to end any time soon. Unfortunately, like any violent conflict in the world, this war will have long-lasting impacts at the global and regional level, with the citizens on either side being the worst sufferers.     

Haris Bilal Malik is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) in Islamabad, Pakistan. This article was first published in Global Village Space. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »